70 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

Pjwned, on 14 September 2016 - 10:31 PM, said:

Just going to note that "10 second turn" meant absolutely nothing in TT, and that saying anything was balanced around that concept doesn't make sense.
.

I agree, turns could last 5s without changing anything else and it would make no difference whatsoever.

[kapusta11]

Pjwned, on 14 September 2016 - 10:31 PM, said:

Just going to note that "10 second turn" meant absolutely nothing in TT, and that saying anything was balanced around that concept doesn't make sense.

That said, if you wanted to go as far as increasing DHS dissipation to 0.5 per second then that could make up for no extra heat capacity whatsoever, but it would still be lame for energy boats (similar to how it is now on PTS but it's not as bad on PTS) since if they ever dared to fire all their weapons at once then they would shut down immediately afterwards, which nearly everybody seems to want because they have a raging hate hard-on for energy boats.

I don't really understand why it's so important to flatten the heat cap in this game though since people seem to act like the extra heat capacity from heatsinks goes against TT so much, even though it really doesn't go against TT at all. Using the Warhawk as an example again in TT, it doesn't necessarily shut down from firing all 4 of its ER PPCs at once because of the heat buffer from its 20 DHS which results in only 20 heat generated for the mech, and in MWO the extra heat capacity acts exactly like the heat buffer from heatsinks that you see in TT; the reason that people get confused about this is because heat generation and dissipation are obviously handled a lot differently in a video game rather than a turn-based board game, so in order to simulate that extra heat buffer we just have heatsinks adding to our heat capacity in addition to dissipating heat.

I agree that how long a turn lasts is actually not important, my point was that in TT there is a relation between how often you can fire your weapons and how much heat you can dissipate in the same time span and that's where MWO and TT differs greatly. Not saying that it's bad thing, just wanted to point out that 0.4-0.5 dissipation is not "way beyond" the lore.

[ScarecrowES]

The importance of the 10-second turn in TT comes into play because MWO established it's gameplay on this premise. The amount itself in TT is arbitrary, as we say, until you get into rule sets like Solaris.

However MWO translated these systems largely faithfully from TT. Instead of dissipating your full heat cap in one 10-second turn as in TT, you dissipate 1/10 of your cap per second... or the entire amount over 10 seconds.

The MWO heat cap is defined through the same methodology as in TT (though with more convoluted math)... number of heat sinks times modifier for type plus 30 for the penalty scale. Effectively, the MWO heat system IS the TT system playing out in real time over the same period of time. It just has no penalty system or the different dissipation mechanics of that system.

The 10-second turn WAS absolutely meaningless in TT. MWO makes it important because the entire combat mechanics and systems suite, as well as the build system mechanics and weapon mechanics and tuning are built around gameplay from TT metered out in 10-second chunks.

It should be noted that a PPC Warhawk can have a dissipation rate of 5.6pts/sec in both TT and in MWO... and it can still only alpha once in each. It just hurts a LOT more to do it in TT.

[Greyhart]

kapusta11, on 15 September 2016 - 04:05 AM, said:

I agree that how long a turn lasts is actually not important, my point was that in TT there is a relation between how often you can fire your weapons and how much heat you can dissipate in the same time span and that's where MWO and TT differs greatly. Not saying that it's bad thing, just wanted to point out that 0.4-0.5 dissipation is not "way beyond" the lore.

Actually this timings and cooldown is an entirely MWO thing as the TT only allowed you to fire once per round.

As such there is a direct correlation between Damage, Slots, Heat, Tonnage and Range. http://mwomercs.com/...balance-theory/ Is where I am currently working this out.

the problem now lies in cooldown (how often can you fire). considering that the ML and AC5 are equivalent to each other they should have the same fire rate. but the AC5 fires twice as fast.

I am currently thinking that this is to do with the 10 mandatory heat sinks (especially if they are in the engine) as they negate the tonnage, slots of the heat generated by the ML

[ScarecrowES]

Greyhart, on 15 September 2016 - 05:17 AM, said:

Actually this timings and cooldown is an entirely MWO thing as the TT only allowed you to fire once per round.

As such there is a direct correlation between Damage, Slots, Heat, Tonnage and Range. http://mwomercs.com/...balance-theory/ Is where I am currently working this out.

the problem now lies in cooldown (how often can you fire). considering that the ML and AC5 are equivalent to each other they should have the same fire rate. but the AC5 fires twice as fast.

I am currently thinking that this is to do with the 10 mandatory heat sinks (especially if they are in the engine) as they negate the tonnage, slots of the heat generated by the ML

Since the actual firing tempo of a weapon is predetermined by the relation between it's heat value and the mech's heat cap and dissipation, cooldowns are actually a tool to balance weapons against each other, to that we can reach an approximate equivelancy in the value of their output.

TT already established a basic balance between the factors it needs to use... mostly output (range/damage), investment (weight, crits, sinks, ammo), and heat. MWO also includes thing like spread, duration, projectile travel, etc.

Ideally, PGI would only use cooldowns to balance these factors, as it's really the only thing over which IT has sole domain, but unfortunately their deviation away from TTs heat system tends to bork a bunch of the combat pacing and weapon mechanics too. They end up using cooldowns , among other things, to try to compensate.

[Pjwned]

kapusta11, on 15 September 2016 - 04:05 AM, said:

I agree that how long a turn lasts is actually not important, my point was that in TT there is a relation between how often you can fire your weapons and how much heat you can dissipate in the same time span and that's where MWO and TT differs greatly. Not saying that it's bad thing, just wanted to point out that 0.4-0.5 dissipation is not "way beyond" the lore.

It still does break lore a fair bit though to wildly increase dissipation in order to flatten the heat capacity to 30 on every mech, because heatsinks actually did more or less increase your heat capacity in TT.

Now I'm not saying "OMG WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THIS BECAUSE TT HEATSINKS DIDN'T WORK LIKE THAT" and I can see how it would work, but I don't agree with it either because I don't see the problem with heatsinks granting extra capacity while I do see some problems with hugely increasing dissipation in order to flatten heat capacity.

What we need instead of all this nonsense we're seeing on the PTS is to properly address convergence, stop screwing around so much with heatsink values and just give us TrueDubs™ & standard heatsinks, normalize engine heatsinks so that SHS have some actual value, and then finally start adding some actual heat scale penalties (read: not arbitrary energy draw BS) when mechs start really heating up.

[Greyhart]

Pjwned, on 15 September 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

It still does break lore a fair bit though to wildly increase dissipation in order to flatten the heat capacity to 30 on every mech, because heatsinks actually did more or less increase your heat capacity in TT.

Now I'm not saying "OMG WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THIS BECAUSE TT HEATSINKS DIDN'T WORK LIKE THAT" and I can see how it would work, but I don't agree with it either because I don't see the problem with heatsinks granting extra capacity while I do see some problems with hugely increasing dissipation in order to flatten heat capacity.

What we need instead of all this nonsense we're seeing on the PTS is to properly address convergence, stop screwing around so much with heatsink values and just give us TrueDubs™ & standard heatsinks, normalize engine heatsinks so that SHS have some actual value, and then finally start adding some actual heat scale penalties (read: not arbitrary energy draw BS) when mechs start really heating up.

Whilst the number of variations on heat cap and dissipation is equal to the number of people that comment on the subject. I think a majority think the solution is in the heat system. I hope they work on tweaking the numbers they are working with on heat cap and dissipation.

I think a lot if not almost everyone thinks that progressive heat penalties would be a major step in the right direction on solving the issue of high alphas.

[Widowmaker1981]

Pjwned, on 15 September 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

What we need instead of all this nonsense we're seeing on the PTS is to properly address convergence.

I can't really believe with how much you are on the forums that you have not seen the explanation that delayed convergence doesnt work with HSR, so.. what do you want them to do?

Remove HSR? LOL NO. The moment i have to lead with hitscan weapons, by a different amount depending on target ping is the moment i leave forever.. thats absurd, and is why i didnt play online shooters until internet connections became acceptable.

Or do you just think its lies, and delayed convergence works fine with HSR? Because that seems unlikely, since they implemented the mechanic in the first place, they obviously wanted it in.. why just ditch it?

NO convergence would just be terrible and ruin the game (because it would make long range damage insanely weak, handing the game to brawlers forever, since they tend to be less precise anyway and make up for it with raw dmg)

[davoodoo]

Widowmaker1981, on 16 September 2016 - 12:50 AM, said:

handing the game to brawlers forever, since they tend to be less precise anyway and make up for it with raw dmg)

Oh the irony of ed

[ScarecrowES]

Widowmaker1981, on 16 September 2016 - 12:50 AM, said:

I can't really believe with how much you are on the forums that you have not seen the explanation that delayed convergence doesnt work with HSR, so.. what do you want them to do?

Remove HSR? LOL NO. The moment i have to lead with hitscan weapons, by a different amount depending on target ping is the moment i leave forever.. thats absurd, and is why i didnt play online shooters until internet connections became acceptable.

Or do you just think its lies, and delayed convergence works fine with HSR? Because that seems unlikely, since they implemented the mechanic in the first place, they obviously wanted it in.. why just ditch it?

NO convergence would just be terrible and ruin the game (because it would make long range damage insanely weak, handing the game to brawlers forever, since they tend to be less precise anyway and make up for it with raw dmg)

I don't necessarily believe the fact that true convergence systems cannot work with HSR (a problem almost everyone is willing to acknowledge KILLS that idea) is the end of what can be done with the "convergence" concept. The effects of convergence can, of course, be simulated, even if they can't be actually replicated directly.

Shot deviation for projectile weapons CAN be done, and in fact already is done for weapons like the LBX and SRMs. You can simulate the effects of a convergence system on these weapons by introducing variability of the spread/deviation of those weapons based on mech condition.

HSR weapons can't really do that. They always aim at a fixed point as required by their coding. I doubt we care that MGs always aim true, so mostly we're concerned about lasers. Duration-based weapons like lasers require being held on a specific point to maximize their damage. You can simulate the effects of convergence by reducing their damage-at-range values based on mech condition.

I actually did a write-up quite awhile ago about a new Stability-based system that simulates convergence in these ways. Moving, firing, etc decreases stability and incurs negative "convergence" effects... shot deviation for projectile weapons, reduced damage-over-range for lasers, etc. Base stability, recovery rate, and the effects of different actions varied by mech weight, so each class basically felt very different in how they handled. Of course, at the time, the game was turning out pretty balanced and folks kinda let the whole convergence thing go, so I never bothered to post it.

[Pjwned]

Widowmaker1981, on 16 September 2016 - 12:50 AM, said:

I can't really believe with how much you are on the forums that you have not seen the explanation that delayed convergence doesnt work with HSR, so.. what do you want them to do?

Remove HSR? LOL NO. The moment i have to lead with hitscan weapons, by a different amount depending on target ping is the moment i leave forever.. thats absurd, and is why i didnt play online shooters until internet connections became acceptable.

Or do you just think its lies, and delayed convergence works fine with HSR? Because that seems unlikely, since they implemented the mechanic in the first place, they obviously wanted it in.. why just ditch it?

There are a few different ways of handling it, but my favorite method is convergence based on target locks, which wouldn't screw with HSR horribly like delayed convergence did.

Quote

NO convergence would just be terrible and ruin the game (because it would make long range damage insanely weak, handing the game to brawlers forever, since they tend to be less precise anyway and make up for it with raw dmg)

I agree; it's important that convergence be toned down, because it obviously causes problems with the way it is now, but it's also important to not dismantle convergence completely.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 September 2016 - 12:47 AM.